Letters

The World According to George Bush
“Inside The Mind Of George W. Bush” [Sept. 6] reaffirmed my admiration for this man. I love that the President is stubborn enough to stick to his guns when it comes to the safety of the U.S. He’s my hero.
Terri Bradshaw
Grand Prairie, Texas, U.S.

Bush’s main problem is that he fails to think ahead. He invaded Iraq but didn’t plan for the aftermath. He offended allies whose help we now need. He started a war without thinking how it would destabilize the world. He cut corners, bypassing the U.N. Being tough cannot make up for a lack of judgment.
Ilya Shlyakhter
Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.

After 9/11 the U.S. was in a position in which a decision had to be made. Bush acted as any effective Commander in Chief would have. We Americans have been blessed with security, freedom and our way of life because soldiers and civilians have sacrificed their lives for just causes. In today’s global society, to have acted any way other than we did after the events of 9/11 would have been dangerously naive.
Michael Poppen
Sioux Falls, South Dakota, U.S.

I admire the way the president stands up for what he believes in and makes tough decisions rather than trying to be Mr. Popular. Saddam Hussein would have done something terrible down the road, and Bush knew the way to act was quickly, while Iraq was vulnerable.
Joseph Zoltek
Glenside, Pennsylvania, U.S.

Bush ought to remember the words of H.L. Mencken: “For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat and wrong.” All of Bush’s simple solutions to our country’s problems have been, invariably, wrong. I do not want as President an amiable fellow who does not accept that politics is about compromise. I would rather have an effective President whom I despise as a person than a wrongheaded one who is a good fishing buddy.
David P. Vernon
Tucson, Arizona, U.S.

Bush was thrust into the horror of 9/11, a situation that any President, Republican or Democrat, would have struggled with. It’s very easy three years later to criticize the way Bush handled foreign affairs, but at the time we were a nation that was shocked and scared. Bush is a President in a no-win situation. No matter what he does, people will criticize and see fit to condemn him. He may not be the perfect President. He has made mistakes. But no one else can truthfully say he could have done better than Bush did.
Merridith Frediani
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, U.S.

Time for a Third Party?
The two-party system in the U.S. is particularly useless because each side tries to express issues from radically different viewpoints: conservative or liberal [Sept. 6]. A third party representing the middle would bring balance to American politics. Why do only half those eligible to vote turn out? Could it be because they feel neither party represents them? In Canada’s June federal elections, the incumbent Liberal Party was chided by voters, and it achieved only a narrow minority win. Most Canadians felt the Liberals were still the most moderate option but believed they had arrogantly abused the people’s trust in a recent spending scandal. We now have our government in check once again. Perhaps moderates in the U.S. — both Democratic and Republican — could branch off and form a useful new party that would bring about meaningful change to U.S. politics.
Rich Kraemer
Toronto

Debating His Chances
In his viewpoint “The Case For Bush” [Sept. 6], Charles Krauthammer argued that after the President’s success in Afghanistan and a continued hunt for al-Qaeda, he could have sat back for two years and “coasted to re-election.” But what about all those other issues the Administration would have been forced to address if it hadn’t been for the Iraq war? By whipping voters into a prolonged state of fear and anxiety, the President has been able to so effectively mask his abysmal performance on big problems like the economy and health reform that apparently even such savvy political essayists as Krauthammer have forgotten that they exist.
Anisha Mason
San Francisco

What about the administration’s distortions on Iraq’s involvement in 9/11 and its supposed weapons of mass destruction? More than a thousand American troops and many thousands of Iraqis have paid for those distortions with their lives.
Claude Gordon
London

Bush is decisive and bold, but those traits without knowledge, sensitivity (to others and to cultural contexts) and wisdom are dangerous. We don’t know yet whether Afghanistan will survive as a free and democratic country. That’s still to be determined. We don’t know that al-Qaeda is scattered; they are probably just lying low and planning big. Bush’s shortsighted decision to invade Iraq fueled anti-Americanism not only in the Middle East but in Western democracies as well. In an ever shrinking world, the attitude of “my way or the highway” won’t cut it. Looking at the real reasons behind anti-Americanism and working collaboratively with other countries facing the same threats are the only ways the war on terrorists can ever be won. But Bush doesn’t have the knowledge, sensitivity or wisdom to discern that.
Barbara J. Crawford
Jyvskyl, Finland

Broader Questions
The state of politics in the U.S. today is quite worrisome [Sept. 6]. Issues have been jettisoned for personal attacks that could be seen as diversionary. The war on terrorism has dominated everything, pushing aside issues like health care, jobs and education. Defending America is good, but under what circumstances? The question Americans want answered is whether they are better protected now or have been made more vulnerable to attacks. The candidates should address the host of vital issues facing Americans and reject the trivial personal smears.
Collins Onuoha
Berlin

Bush is quoted as saying “I’m not the historian. I’m the guy making history.” Yes, but what kind of history? Hitler and Saddam were also the guys making history. It is amazing and frightening that the head of the U.S. military is intellectually incapable of perceiving some basic distinctions. Those who want to see what kind of history Bush is making should have a look at his unmistakable cowboy posturing.
Yehia El-Ezabi
Cairo

You reported that “Bush constantly cites the example of postwar Germany and Japan to argue that it is far too soon to call Iraq a failure.” But it is prewar Germany, in the years 1933-39, that gives many of us a frightening, disheartening parallel: How could a nation of well-educated, civilized, sophisticated people believe the rhetoric of a fanatic leader pretending their lives were threatened by obviously weaker neighbors, and follow him into a disastrous pre-emptive war?
Nicolas Gessner
Paris

If I were an American, I would vote for Bush. U.S. citizens should judge a President by evaluating what he has done in the past and also how he perceives the future. I admire a President who would oust a notorious dictator — not because voters approved of it but because it was a worthy act. I admire Bush.
Chinedum Onwuchekwa
Nsukka, Nigeria

Bush is praised for being brave and decisive, but why, when bravery and snap decisions based on trumped-up evidence have proved disastrously wrong? Neither the U.S., in its long-term interests, nor the world can afford another four years of Bush and his unilateralism.
Michael Kromberg
Kongsberg, Norway

President Bush may believe going to war in Iraq brought a better life to the Iraqi people, but what makes the Iraqis so special? There are thousands of children starving the world over. If Bush really wants to help the people of the international community, it is far easier and cheaper to feed the hungry and dying than to spend billions on war. But there is nothing to be gained by helping starving children — and Iraq has oil. The international community needs to save those who are dying because they lack the basic necessities. Then we should concentrate on helping people improve their standard of living, without taking into consideration how it may benefit us personally.
Dariusz Lanecki
Munich

Your interview with President Bush was very interesting and, in many ways, revealing in its display of the great differences in political thinking on the two sides of the Atlantic Ocean. The President’s unwavering trust in his mission (well, in himself) and his uncompromising use of power is difficult for Europeans to swallow. We are much more used to parliamentary compromises, minority governments, pros and cons, and, simply, doubt. I am quite worried that Americans and Europeans are drifting apart in a way we have never seen before. It is a real shame, and we need to rebuild the old alliance. The U.S. has to show more understanding of the views of other countries, and Europe has to take on greater military responsibility. No matter who is elected U.S. President in November, we have to find each other again.
Tomas Bech Madsen
Soro, Denmark

The Price of Spurious Ads
Joe Klein’s column “What The Swifties Cost America” [Sept. 6], on the way political attack ads like those of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have stifled real political debate, was refreshing. It is very disheartening that politics has become a constant bashing of opponents instead of focusing on the issues and actually doing something to address them. It’s especially discouraging when you consider what good might be done with the funds that are used to wage misdirected political wars.
Scott A. Farber
Boston

Prisoner of the Nazis
I was stunned to see the term “Polish labor camp” in the Milestone on the death of Navajo code talker Frank Sanache [Sept. 6]. The Nazis organized and ran the German concentration, labor and POW camps of World War II (including the one in what is now Poland where Sanache was imprisoned). We need to preserve the truth about atrocities committed by the Nazis instead of creating harmful stereotypes that involve Poland.
Przemyslaw Grudzinski, Ambassador of the Republic of Poland to the U.S.
Washington

A New Legitimacy Needed
Mark Thatcher, son of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, has been charged with helping to finance a plot to overthrow Teodoro Obiang Nguema, the President of oil-rich Equatorial Guinea [Sept. 6]. Nguema’s regime is undemocratic, but Thatcher and his wealthy friends did not have any legitimacy to overthrow it. The U.S., however, by deciding unilaterally to topple the bloody and dictatorial regime of Saddam, has provided a poor example to the world. What will now stop regional powers — or even individuals — from intervening in neighboring countries? A proper, legal vision of intervention must be reconstructed and action taken only when a U.N. resolution has deemed it legitimate.
Paul van der Schueren
Paris

Of Medals and Myths
The performance of Canada’s Olympic team could have been better, but the only thing that went wrong in Athens is that we Canadians bought into the Olympic myth that winning gold medals is somehow necessary for a country’s self-esteem [Sept. 6]. Why do we need to ensure that Canada will win more medals the next time around? Much more disappointing in my view is the notion that by not placing in the top three spots in competitions, an athlete has somehow failed us. Thanks in large part to the media, moreover, a low medal count is supposed to be cause for national concern, even embarrassment. What a burden to heap on our Olympians! How well or poorly Canadian athletes have done at any Olympics has never affected my pride in my country one bit.
John D. Avery
Winnipeg, Canada